16 ms·

look at the backgrounds of those board members... cant find any evidence that any of them have experience with corporate politics. theyre in way over their head

look at the backgrounds of those board members... cant find any evidence that any of them have experience with corporate politics. theyre in way over their heads.

robswc 3y ago
It is also crazy that the "winning move" was to just do nothing and look like a genius and coast off that for the rest of their lives. Who in their right mind would consider them for a board position now.
- cthalupa 3y ago
  This is assuming motivations similar to a board for a for-profit company, which the OpenAI board is not. Insisting, no matter how painful, that the organization stays true to the charter could be considered a desirable trait for the board of a non-profit.
  - robswc 3y ago
    Fair. I don't know why they wouldn't just come out and say that though, if that were the case. It would be seen as admirable, instead of snake-ish. Instead of "Sam has been lying to us" it could have been "Sam had diverged too far from the original goal, when he did X."
    - cthalupa 3y ago
      It's hard to say. Lots of things don't really make sense based on the information we have. They could have meant that Sam had 'not been candid' about his alignment with commercial interests vs. the charter.
    - cowl 3y ago
      that is what the press release says. they didn't go into specifics but it is clear that the conflict is in Comercialisation vs original purpose
      - robswc 3y ago
        >that is what the press release says. In the initial press release, they said Sam was a liar. Doing this without offering a hint of an example or actual specifics gave Sam the clear "win" in the court of public opinion. IF they would have said "it is clear Sam and the board will never see eye to eye on alignment, etc. etc" they probably could have made it 50/50 or even favored.
- hilux 3y ago
  A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
cowl 3y ago
that's because it was never supposed to be a Corporate. It was a non-profit dedicated to AI research in the benefit of All. This is also why all this happened, they trying to stay true to the mission and not turn into a corporate.
- DebtDeflation 3y ago
  In which case you could say the three non-employee members of the board have no background in AI. Two of them have no real background in tech at all. One seems to have no background in anything other than being married to a famous actor. If Sam returns, those three have to go. He should offer Ilya the same deal Ilya offered Greg - you can stay with the company but you have to step down from the board.
- jkaplowitz 3y ago
  They don’t have experience with non-profit leadership either, do they? They have some experience leading for-profits, such as the Quora CEO, but not non-profits.

look at the backgrounds of those board members... cant find any evidence that any of them have experience with corporate politics. theyre in way over their heads.

robswc 3y ago

It is also crazy that the "winning move" was to just do nothing and look like a genius and coast off that for the rest of their lives. Who in their right mind would consider them for a board position now.

cthalupa 3y ago
This is assuming motivations similar to a board for a for-profit company, which the OpenAI board is not. Insisting, no matter how painful, that the organization stays true to the charter could be considered a desirable trait for the board of a non-profit.
- robswc 3y ago
  Fair. I don't know why they wouldn't just come out and say that though, if that were the case. It would be seen as admirable, instead of snake-ish. Instead of "Sam has been lying to us" it could have been "Sam had diverged too far from the original goal, when he did X."
  - cthalupa 3y ago
    It's hard to say. Lots of things don't really make sense based on the information we have. They could have meant that Sam had 'not been candid' about his alignment with commercial interests vs. the charter.
  - cowl 3y ago
    that is what the press release says. they didn't go into specifics but it is clear that the conflict is in Comercialisation vs original purpose
    - robswc 3y ago
      >that is what the press release says. In the initial press release, they said Sam was a liar. Doing this without offering a hint of an example or actual specifics gave Sam the clear "win" in the court of public opinion. IF they would have said "it is clear Sam and the board will never see eye to eye on alignment, etc. etc" they probably could have made it 50/50 or even favored.
hilux 3y ago
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

cowl 3y ago

that's because it was never supposed to be a Corporate. It was a non-profit dedicated to AI research in the benefit of All. This is also why all this happened, they trying to stay true to the mission and not turn into a corporate.

DebtDeflation 3y ago
In which case you could say the three non-employee members of the board have no background in AI. Two of them have no real background in tech at all. One seems to have no background in anything other than being married to a famous actor. If Sam returns, those three have to go. He should offer Ilya the same deal Ilya offered Greg - you can stay with the company but you have to step down from the board.
jkaplowitz 3y ago
They don’t have experience with non-profit leadership either, do they? They have some experience leading for-profits, such as the Quora CEO, but not non-profits.